BS! ... listen to Phil Legget's interview where he's says exactly opposite. He claims Lance played by the rules, subjecting himself to 500+ tests. sometimes 3 tests on the same day from 3 different agencies. without a single failed test.

in past days when test times were known months in advance. certainly it was possible to avoid detection. but under monitoring 7x24 where one has to log in on web every time one is headed out. so test inspectors has option of showing up where athlete is headed.

there is NO way someone can cheat without getting caught. look at the case of Alberto Salazar getting suspended for two years over traces of clenbuterol. with amounts in his system so tiny it would not have been possible just 2 years before.

Alberto's tests came out clean before and during TDF. so without question he ingested the tiny amounts of clenbuterol during TDF. amounts that NO way helped his performance. then add in the fact that several different athletes have tested positive under almost identical circumstance. then were cleared.

an athlete cannot with 100% certainty control everything that goes into his body over the course of three weeks. a rider at times will accept a water bottle from a spectator or what ever.

drug tests have gotten to be a joke. agencies like USADA has gotten out of hand. after a 40 million $$ investigation by the Feds. if they had one shred of hard evidence. NO way they would have dropped charges against Lance. Only in America do we have our prisons overflowing with folks for POT. where the war against drugs after 30 years has shown NO improvement. where drug agencies have taken over budget $$$ and need to justify it's existence. are we seeing a pattern?

how can it be fair to anyone ... charge someone with a crime, then offer NO evidence, other than a vague charging document. then says proof will be offered at a hearing. going to a "trial" without knowing what evidence is getting ready to be used against you. or who is getting ready to testify against you. all with NO way to prepare a defense. NO way that can be fair!!!

IMHO this is why public opinion is heavily in Lance's favor (donations up 25x). even folks who don't follow cycling understand fair play. NO way what USADA has done is remotely fair. without hard evidence like a failed drug test. getting 10 people to testify against Lance means little to nothing. No telling what tactics were used to get testimony. like threats of getting same treatment as Lance if they didn't give testimony USADA wanted.

Every athlete that was screwed out of achieving professional goals in one of the most difficult sports because they chose to play by the rules can take some satisfaction that every athlete associated with this investigation with forever be known as a cheater. Job well done to the USADA.

in other words ... NO hard evidence is needed to convict. sorry but testimony from proven liars and tainted witnesses don't count.

think of the incredible pressure brought to bear on Lance's former teammates. most were given very favorable terms to allow them to retire. if there were any sanctions I've not seen any on current riders.

unlike Lance, most riders don't have the financial means to defend themselves against someone with unlimited resources. Win or lose, threat of getting same treatment as Lance from USADA or District Attorney would automatically destroy their careers and/or end of careers.

ANY testimony resulting from such threats are tainted!!!
----------------

IV.
DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING USADA’S CHARGES
A.
Introduction
1. Standard of Proof
Article 3.1 of the Code provides that: ““[t]he standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-
Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction
of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.”” As noted
in the comment to Article 3.1, this standard of proof is comparable to the standard which is
applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. Thus, for example, in
proceedings in the United States to take away the license to practice of a doctor or lawyer, the
applicable standard of proof is typically ““clear and convincing evidence.”” In this case, the
evidence against Mr. Armstrong is overwhelming. In USADA’’s view, it establishes his doping
beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence
The World Anti-Doping Code specifies that doping can be proved by ““any reliable
means.””28 This case was initiated by USADA based on evidence other than a positive drug test.
It is not necessary for there to have been a positive drug test in order for a rule violation to have

28 Code, Art. 3.2.

Page | 16

been established and many cases reflect this principle.29 It could not be otherwise because at any
given time there are many drugs and methods of doping on the prohibited list that are not
detectable through laboratory testing.

Every athlete that was screwed out of achieving professional goals in one of the most difficult sports because they chose to play by the rules can take some satisfaction that every athlete associated with this investigation with forever be known as a cheater. Job well done to the USADA.

__________________
There is a pleasure in the pathed woods, There is a rapture in the smoking pipe, There is chaos, where none intrudes, in the deep dell, with its thrills roar; I love not nature less, but bikes the more. Byron riding.

The USADA was prepared to go to court vs. LA a couple of months ago. The documents needed in there submission to the UCI are not entirely the same. I.e. since LA didn't oppose that had to include the decision. Hence the time to thoroughly prepare a document.

in other words ... NO hard evidence is needed to convict. sorry but testimony from proven liars and tainted witnesses don't count.

think of the incredible pressure brought to bear on Lance's former teammates. most were given very favorable terms to allow them to retire. if there were any sanctions I've not seen any on current riders.
.

George Hincapie probably had the best reputation amongst fans and fellow cyclists of any US rider. Perhaps ever. I guess he is now a proven liar as he has admitted doping but prior that had a super reputation.

What were the pressures on LA's teamates? I have heard any "do this or else" type of statements.

The blinders some of you wear are hilarious. What in the world would be the motivation of the USADA to go after someone they know is innocent. How does LA being found out to be a liar help anyone?